February 3, 20223 yr Got it, we don't trust John Hopkins now because it doesn't fit your narrative. Or you don't understand what Applied Economics are.
February 3, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: DUM DUM Economists are pretty good with stats, dum dum. I have no idea if these two are good but generally good economists are near the top with metrics. Might be worth actually taking a look before just ruling them out.
February 3, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said: Got it, we don't trust John Hopkins now because it doesn't fit your narrative. Wow, are you really this dense? You are clearly way out of your league on this topic. It's been awhile since I took biostatistics, so I might be doing the math wrong, but let's just assume that these unqualified academics produced an authoritative study. We've had nearly 77,000,000 coronavirus infections in the U.S. If you use that number to calculate how many deaths figure from a reduced mortality rate of .2%, you get 15, 400 less deaths, in a country where lockdowns were brief, not uniform, and not strictly adhered to. Yeah, 15,000 less dead people is totally "little to no effect." Keep using the NY post as a source, and I will continue to destroy your "narrative" with ease.
February 3, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Economists are pretty good with stats, dum dum. I have no idea if these two are good but generally good economists are near the top with metrics. Might be worth actually taking a look before just ruling them out. If it was a collaborative study, that'd be one thing. It is not. There is not a single scientist or medical professional listed among the authors. Either way, their numbers arguably don't even support their clearly biased conclusion.
February 3, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Wow, are you really this dense? You are clearly way out of your league on this topic. It's been awhile since I took biostatistics, so I might be doing the math wrong, but let's just assume that these unqualified academics produced an authoritative study. We've had nearly 77,000,000 coronavirus infections in the U.S. If you use that number to calculate how many deaths figure from a reduced mortality rate of .2%, you get 15, 400 less deaths, in a country where lockdowns were brief, not uniform, and not strictly adhered to. Yeah, 15,000 less dead people is totally "little to no effect." Keep using the NY post as a source, and I will continue to destroy your "narrative" with ease. C’mon dude. Your making yourself look stupid and you’re not. They are most certainly qualified academics and the source isn’t the NY Post. 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: If it was a collaborative study, that'd be one thing. It is not. There is not a single scientist or medical professional listed among the authors. Either way, their numbers arguably don't even support their clearly biased conclusion. Did you read the study?
February 3, 20223 yr The really funny thing is that all I said was that we might end up returning to "strict mitigation" if we don't take the virus seriously enough, which could refer to any number of measures. I never even mentioned lockdowns, and it wasn't really even specifically on my mind. I didn't even say I wanted these things but that they were in the realm of possibility. But CVON babies started immediately queefing about lockdowns and NY post drivel.
February 3, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, DrPhilly said: C’mon dude. Your making yourself look stupid and you’re not. They are most certainly qualified academics and the source isn’t the NY Post. Today I learned that economists are the proper academic authorities to study epidemiology and public health measures. I didn't read the study. The guy just posted it 5 minutes ago. I did pull it up, though, and saw that there wasn't a single scientist or public health authority included among the authors, and I found there conclusion to be highly questionable given the numbers they provided.
February 3, 20223 yr 12 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Wow, are you really this dense? You are clearly way out of your league on this topic. It's been awhile since I took biostatistics, so I might be doing the math wrong, but let's just assume that these unqualified academics produced an authoritative study. We've had nearly 77,000,000 coronavirus infections in the U.S. If you use that number to calculate how many deaths figure from a reduced mortality rate of .2%, you get 15, 400 less deaths, in a country where lockdowns were brief, not uniform, and not strictly adhered to. Yeah, 15,000 less dead people is totally "little to no effect." Keep using the NY post as a source, and I will continue to destroy your "narrative" with ease. Oh my he took a class on something, watch out. Then calls professors and PhD in economics unqualified. I posted the link from the study since the Post wasn't good enough for your big brains. Just love how dismissive you are of it because it doesn't fit what you want to hear.
February 3, 20223 yr 35 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said: Oh my he took a class on something, watch out. Then calls professors and PhD in economics unqualified. Wow, what a d-bag. My point was actually that I don't know if I'm doing the math right but it seems to indicate that even half-assed measures still led to over 15,000 less deaths. It was actually a recognition of potential ignorance in case I have the numbers wrong, but it's funny how you felt threatened and lashed out at the notion of "taking a class." Sounds like you missed a few. The fact that you can't readily understand why economists aren't the proper authorities to study scientific topics shows all I need to know. You'd make a nice Dunning-Kruger study.
February 3, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: People arguing over who's appeal to authority is more authoritative. Yeah, who needs experts, anyway? Might as well just ask anyone in any field what their take is.
February 3, 20223 yr 29 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: C’mon dude. Your making yourself look stupid and you’re not. They are most certainly qualified academics and the source isn’t the NY Post. Did you read the study? No, I didn't already read a 62-page study that was just posted 10 minutes ago. I did pull it up, though, to read the introductory portions and found its authorship to be questionable and its conclusions to be a bit odd when the numbers are borne out.
February 3, 20223 yr Just playing Devil's Advocate... Quote Lockdowns saved more lives than deaths from economic losses, UM study finds A University of Michigan-led study released Friday found that nationwide lockdowns and other restrictions imposed during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic saved more lives than the number lost due to the impacts of the shutdown on the nation's economy. The study also looked at the number of years of good health restored to the people who were saved from COVID-19, compared with the number of healthy years lost by the people who died due to the effects of the national recession, such as the poverty, loss of health insurance, mental illness and other issues that stemmed from job losses. The U.S. pandemic lockdown in 2020 caused a $2.3 trillion economic downturn and split the nation politically, noted Olga Yakusheva, an associate professor of nursing at UM and the study's lead author. The bitter national debate between people concerned about the damage to the economy and those who focused on saving lives was the impetus for the cost-benefit analysis, she said. "There were these two camps of thought," Yakusheva explained. "On the one side there were the pragmatic people who were worried about the economic loss. "On the other side, there were people who ... felt like every life is infinitely important, and saving life is worth every dollar that you can spend on it. "What we wanted, as economists, was to bring to the surface ... that it is not just money. There is a very strong relationship between having a job and being able to pay for food and medicine, and being able to afford health care, and health and mortality." Yakusheva's team reviewed all of the existing studies where economists tried to estimate how much money could be lost from the economy before one person would die from the effects of the economic loss. The UM researchers determined it would take an economic loss of about $11 million to $17 million to result in one death — the smaller amount if the lion's share of the loss was suffered by the rich, and the larger amount if people from all economic brackets lost the same percentage from their incomes. "We looked at all the literature that had this cost-to-death estimate, and it was empirically derived," the investigator said. "We wanted data based studies that were deriving those estimates from actual observational data." Using those figures, the UM researchers calculated how many deaths would have resulted from the $2.3 trillion loss to the economy that resulted from health mitigation measures. The study found that from March through August 2020, the widespread lockdowns and other mitigation measures in the United States potentially saved an estimated 866,350 to 1,711,150 lives. But harms caused by the economic downturn potentially caused 57,922 to 245,055 deaths. The study looked at the number of "quality adjusted years" gained by the lockdowns, or lost due to the economic fallout of mitigation strategies. The measure is frequently used in health economics studies because of differences in each individual's age and health status, Yakusheva said. A quality adjusted life year represents one year of life in perfect health. The results showed that people who were saved by the mitigation measures had fewer quality-adjusted years remaining than the people who died as a result of the recession. This is because many of the people saved were high-risk older adults with multiple illnesses and fewer healthy years left to live, while those most affected by economic losses were younger people in service jobs and other lower-paying occupations, according to the study. The younger people found themselves without employer-provided health insurance and, in many cases, were unable to pay for health care or even life-saving medications, according to Yakusheva. "Somebody who has poor health conditions, potentially is not mobile, has difficulties performing simple tasks ... their quality of life is lower, and as a result, one year of their life counts as less than a year," Yakusheva said. The study, published in PLOS One, should not be used to justify more lockdown measures, Yakusheva said. "We evaluated the full packet of public health measures as it was implemented in the beginning of the pandemic, but lesser mitigation measures may have worked just as well to reduce lives lost," Yakusheva said. "The fact is, we just will never know. At the time, we had to work with the information that we had. We knew the pandemic was deadly, and we did not have therapeutics or a vaccine." https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2022/01/21/lockdowns-saved-more-lives-than-deaths-economic-losses-university-michigan-study-finds/6606113001/
February 3, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Just playing Devil's Advocate... Tears down study because it challenges his position. Then posts article touting study in PLoS One. The irony is thick and I am pretty sure he has no idea why.
February 3, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, Toty said: "What we wanted, as economists..." fake news At least this one was a team of researchers lead by a nursing professor. Like I said earlier, a collaborative study would've been much more convincing
February 3, 20223 yr 11 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Just playing Devil's Advocate... No mention of suicides and murders which increased as a result of lockdowns. Also, only the first six months were looked at when the effects might not be measurable until months later.
February 3, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, BBE said: Tears down study because it challenges his position. Then posts article touting study in PLoS One. The irony is thick and I am pretty sure he has no idea why. I never took a position. I said that the study quoted wasn't convincing because A) The researchers were solely drawn from the field of economics and B) The numbers reported don't seem to support the conclusion.
February 3, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: At least this one was a team of researchers lead by a nursing professor. Like I said earlier, a collaborative study would've been much more convincing Published in PLoS One. And your post screams appeal to authority fallacy.
February 3, 20223 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: Can't read, got it. Nope! If you are going to play arbiter of academic soundness, you should know one very important aspect of anything published in PLoS One.
February 3, 20223 yr the widespread lockdowns in the u.s. were in april-may 2020 under the previous administration...before any vaccines or effective treatments were available...and some of you are still queefing about them.
February 3, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, BBE said: Published in PLoS One. And your post screams appeal to authority fallacy. And this where we are: The post-truth Era where the proper authorities are disregarded.
February 3, 20223 yr 40 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Today I learned that economists are the proper academic authorities to study epidemiology and public health measures. I didn't read the study. The guy just posted it 5 minutes ago. I did pull it up, though, and saw that there wasn't a single scientist or public health authority included among the authors, and I found there conclusion to be highly questionable given the numbers they provided. You sheeted on it without anything to back it up except "economists”. No one said the study was sound or that the authors conclusions were valid. No one said a word about anyone being an authority or not. All of that came from you alone. It should most definitely be reviewed by experts in the field of infectious disease but it shouldn’t simply be thrown out without a look. The university is a rather strong one in both scientific studies and medicine and the two authors have very strong academic backgrounds and backgrounds deep in applying mathematical models to look at metrics. I think it deserves a look without just jumping to the "dum dum” conclusion.
February 3, 20223 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: And this where we are: The post-truth Era where the proper authorities are disregarded. Still have no idea what I am talking about. Got it.
February 3, 20223 yr The article you posted even says we shouldn't have more lockdowns. The study, published in PLOS One, should not be used to justify more lockdown measures, Yakusheva said. "We evaluated the full packet of public health measures as it was implemented in the beginning of the pandemic, but lesser mitigation measures may have worked just as well to reduce lives lost," Yakusheva said.
February 3, 20223 yr Just now, DrPhilly said: You sheeted on it without anything to back it up except "economists”. No one said the study was sound or that the authors conclusions were valid. No one said a word about anyone being an authority or not. All of that came from you alone. It should most definitely be reviewed by experts in the field of infectious disease but it shouldn’t simply be thrown out without a look. The university is a rather strong one in both scientific studies and medicine and the two authors have very strong academic backgrounds and backgrounds deep in applying mathematical models to look at metrics. I think it deserves a look without just jumping to the "dum dum” conclusion. And his "devil's advocate" post is for a journal article that does not do peer review of the articles that are published. And then he goes ad hominem in defense of his appeal to authority. FYI, the John's Hopkins study was subject to peer review.
Create an account or sign in to comment